Fiscally liberal means spending tons of money, virtually no one will support that on the surface.
The other unspoken issue is that the vast majority of people in the U.S. - and from the evidence of this Board and others, that includes the vast majority of people who comment about government - do not have the tiniest clue as to what the federal government does, how it works, why it works the way it does, or the history behind its present day functioning.
Without that knowledge and understanding it becomes all too easy to say that the government shouldn’t. Shouldn’t be spending our money, shouldn’t be engaging in certain activities, shouldn’t be taxing us, shouldn’t be interfering in any way.
It’s a quick, easy, and cheap answer in several senses of the word “cheap.”
There may be good reasons for individual instances of fiscal conservatism, of course. Some programs do not work, some industries are overprotected, some special interests have disproportional influence, etc. But these individual instances seldom act as anything more than lazy examples for a blanket condemnation of every governmental activity about which the speaker knows exactly nothing.
Government is something that provides psychological comfort when times are rough. Much of the size and many of the programs that are attacked today came from the Depression and WWII eras, when government appeared to be the only institution capable of providing aid of a size sufficient to the peril. We saw this again after 9/11 when massive support was given to all government efforts against terrorism even though nobody in the country was at any actual risk different than the risk on 9/10.
Good times, especially economic good times - and the U.S. is currently the richest country that ever existed despite the very real change in economic fortune for many individuals - create their own psychological comfort. Wealthy times always produce a swing away from cries for government action. This can be seen in the 1890s, 1920s, 1950s, and 1980s to the present. Fiscal liberalism is not a favored solution in wealthy eras; it’s the preferred solution when things are going wrong.
There are fiscally liberal social conservatives - they’re one of the basic Pew groupings of voters. Their numbers are very small today. When the inevitable swing of the pendulum decrees that times are rough, you’ll start seeing a lot more of them. But not until.
Yes, that’s how it’s currently defined in the US. But can I ask why fiscally liberal means more government, more taxation and even steps towards a welfare state? Those would certainly be more like socialist positions everywhere else (although there’s a degree of difference), while fiscally liberal here would mean less taxes, less government and generally less involvement in people’s lives, much like in the classical sense of liberalism. That’s why if you come to Europe you’ll hear the left accuse the right of neoliberalism and moving towards American position in economic issues. There’s also half-serious talk about extreme liberalism, rather unrealistic viewpoint which would eliminate taxes and income transfers altogether (that’s apparently libertarian in the States). And wasn’t USA founded on the very liberal principles, after all? At what point did “fiscally liberal” get it’s current American meaning, and who decided that, I wonder.
I would suggest that many countries in the Mideast and South Asia seem to want such a mix…or at least they get it. India has typically had what I’d consider a conservative government (and culture) and liberal fiscal policy (but becoming less liberal).
That’s where the “socially liberal” part affects the “fiscally conservative” part. Sometimes you just have to spend a couple bucks to fund your stuff.
The very word I usually use to describe conservatives and, especially, libertarians!
Yep.
While there are people like that you are making a lazy, blanket condemnation of something you do not know enough about. You are mixing us up with the people who are both socially and fiscally conservative, AKA “cranky old guys.” 
Yet their guy got re-elected! 
That was my point. Majorities of Americans want (in almost any poll) social programs and safety nets. They just want them for free, because taxes are evil, apparently.
Hmm. I guess I’m not sure which sentence of the OP’s that it was in response to.
One unstated thing that clouds this issue:
Two people can claim to be fiscally conservative – in favor of cutting many forms of government spending – but completely disagree on which programs to cut.
A person’s response to a poll is influenced by what they want people to think of them (as an aside, I’m convinced that atheists are undercounted in polls for this reason). And as noted above, not many people want to come out and say they want other people’s money. Even if they do.
E.g.: I worked with a guy a few years ago who claimed to be ruthlessly conservative on fiscal matters. He was against everything from welfare to foreign aid. Why, he would rant, can’t everybody pull their own weight in the world? When I asked him why I was forced to subsidize his kids’ education through my property taxes (he had eight kids, I’m a childless bachelor), he insisted that was a different matter, because it was better for society. All it took to make him favor government spending was to have it spent on him.
**That ** is a basic truth of human society!
To be fair, I think education is one of the things we, as a nation, should subsidize. It is better for society. And I’m a childless bachelor too. And tend to be otherwise pretty conservative on fiscal matters.
The title. 
Then again, I cry foul. Fiscal Conservativism doesn’t reflect “we want it but we don’t want to pay for it.”
A good argument can be made that we’ve had several administrations that are “socially conservative and fiscally liberal”. While lip service has been made to cutting government spending, the last three Republican Presidential adminstrations all increased government spending and the national deficit.
Amen!
Why would MNCs favor a socially liberal state? I think trickle-down economics would probably be most immediately favorable to many of them (except maybe cellphone vendors, car salesmen, and credit card companies, who operate on “Ooh shiny”), because rich people keep more money to pump into the corporations.
That’s how I got it in Freshman Poli Sci ten years later, too.
Yup–that’s why we put it on the left side of the economic slide, towards socialism.
Probably impossible to answer–but in a pre-TV/radio/Internet world, news traveled slowly over the Atlantic and Pacific, and influence even more slowly. We (Americans) were so isolated from Europe in matters of daily function and governmental practice that forms of government evolved differently here than there–just like our language and measurement systems.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with my father late last year as gay marriage debates flared up. He said that his main grudge against gay marriage was that he would have to pay for their marriage benefits, which he would never have access to. Then I told him that the gays have been doing the same thing for him for years.
He’s still against it, but I think his mind opened just a little that day.
Again, I say we are on different pages of the same book. The title: “why the huge cry for socially liberal and fiscally conservative”. The socially liberal is the “we want it”. The fiscally conservative is “we don’t want to pay taxes to have it”.
Ohhh, you’re taking socially liberal to mean 'welfare programs, charities, etc."
I take it to mean tolerance for ideas, beliefs, behaviors that do not harm society but which some groups may find offensive. Freedom. Which, despite the Team America song, is Free.
Many of the US Founding Fathers were that way. If raised from the dead today, they’d likely vote Libertarian. And in terms of social conservatism and religion, many early US settlers came to the US fleeing religious persecution. They didn’t want government legislating morality. Note that recreational drugs like opium and cocaine were widely legal in the US until the early 20th Century.
I think there’s a lot of glib assumptions being made here. I’m not saying that this is definitely wrong, but I think it would take a lot more serious critical examination to come up with a conclusion. First of all,t here is plenty of evidence that among the general public, although many people might have been descendants of people fleeing religious persecution, they were perfectly happy to be free to engage in all kinds of persecution, including religious, once they found a place where they were the top dog. It seems to me that the majority has always been comfortable with legislating morality so long as it was their own personal view of morality that was being enforced.
I suspect that the founding fathers themselves might have formed a distinct minority, a privileged elite, that had more … oh, whats the word … enlightened views on things like intellectual freedom than the general public did. The historical development from the revolution on seems to support the idea that it has always been a minority seeking to expand liberty against the conservative views of the majority. It’s been a struggle every step of the way – voting rights for non-property-holders, abolition of slavery, women’s sufferage, the right for workers to organize, abolishing Jim Crow, gradual removal of state-sponsored sanction of religion, the right to contraception, then abortion, then sexual preference. Every advance has been made against the fierce and often violent opposition of the majority. Of course, even this is too much a simplification.
Right. “Social liberal, fiscal conservative” is an attractive proposition in that it claims to maximize both personal and economic freedom. The “SL-FC” combo position generally includes reining back welfare to “only those deserving”, not just cutting taxes.